DAVENPORT
v.
BAY PINES VA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court accepted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to deny the plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the second amended complaint.
Plaintiff filed a renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis and a second amended complaint. The Magistrate Judge recommended denying the motion and …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Proceed In Forma Pauperis cases and more on FLexlaw
This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of United States Magistrate Judge Christopher P. Tuite’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 22), entered on February 11, 2020, recommending the denial of pro se Plaintiff Ronald E. Davenport’s Renewed Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 18), and the dismissal of the second amended complaint (Doc. 17). No objections have been filed, and the time for the submission of objections has expired. After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F. 2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982). In the absence of specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review factual findings de novo, Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F. 2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993), and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F. 3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Castro Bobadilla v. Reno, 826 F. Supp. 1428, 1431-32 (S.D. Fla. 1993), aff’d, 28 F. 3d 116 (11th Cir. 1994) (Table). After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings, conclusions, and recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendation, and giving de novo review to matters of law, the Court accepts the factual findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
(1) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 22) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. (2) Pro se Plaintiff Ronald E. Davenport’s Renewed Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. # 18) is DENIED without prejudice.
(3) The second amended complaint (Doc. # 17) is DISMISSED. (4) The Clerk is directed to CLOSE the case. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this 2nd day of March, 2020.
tena hr. Hummby (nuiTh VIRGINIA M. HERNANDEZ*COVINGTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Marina Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603 (11th Cir. 1994)
- Williams v. Louie L. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982)
- Castro Bobadilla v. Reno, 1993 WL 259424 (S.D. Fla. 1993)